reply_to_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: the reply is publicly visible and it is scoped to the account's own media items. It stops short of disclosing side effects (e.g., the reply appearing in the public thread, persistence after the original comment is hidden), auth expectations, or failure conditions such as disabled comments or invalid comment_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single ten-word sentence front-loads the verb and the key scope qualifiers ('Publicly', 'one of the account's media items') with zero filler. Every word earns its place for a tool this simple.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: 2 required scalar params, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers the essentials — action, visibility, and ownership scope — well enough for an agent to select and invoke it. Remaining gaps (how comment_id is sourced, failure behavior) are minor and partly inferable from sibling tools like get_comments.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning beyond the schema by scoping comment_id to a comment on the account's own media, and message as the public reply content. It does not, however, tell the agent where to obtain comment_id (e.g., from get_comments) or provide value-format guidance beyond the schema's type and maxLength.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('reply') with a specific resource ('a comment on one of the account's media items'), and the qualifier 'publicly' sharpens the meaning. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_comments, hide_comment, and delete_comment, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trigger condition is implied: use this when a public response to a user's comment on the account's media is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for moderation use hide_comment/delete_comment) and no mention of prerequisites or restrictions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.